howitzer

Disappointing that you didn't photoshop some LA's and other bricks to the inside of the coat

4 linear actuators for $6 each makes $24, which doesn't seem like very much to me. I mean, I of course don't know your background or fiscal situation, but is this really a too high price to pay for those parts?

The proportions look really toy-like and not much like a real crawler crane. I guess compromises in the proportions of the booms had to be made, but it really doesn't look like something for adults, more like something you'd find in the toddler section of a toy store. I guess that the booms could be extended though, so that the proportions would somewhat resemble a real crawler crane. While all models based on real world stuff have some compromises, most of the time they are much, much better at replicating the looks of the real thing. Still reserving final judgement but perhaps this time TLG really bit more than they could chew.

For alternative model contest I don't think the larger sets are that much easier, considering that the expectations for the parts usage and functionality would also be proportionally higher. I think someone choosing a large model and then building a small alternative would get quite harshly judged. It could also be required to have a photo of leftover parts so that the parts usage could be judged better. I also think lower limit isn't useful for the shrink the set contest, as making a very small version of the set would not be that challenging and would be judged accordingly. Upper limit (for example the 75% of the original you mentioned) would be better as it would force creativity and choices in how to replicate the functions (if at all) while making the set noticeably different from the original.

I think the limit should be about relative size and not about parts, in the shrink the set-contest. Parts limit is next to impossible to enforce/verify, and it creates a temptation to minimize the structural parts in the set, which leads to weak designs and poorly working functions. Relative size on the other hand, is much easier to verify and forces actual compromises in choosing what functions to keep and rewards creative solutions for attempting to squeeze in as many functions as possible.

With voting, the most cumbersome thing is to familiarize yourself with all the entries, especially when there's a lot of them. Perusing the entry topics, watching all the videos, etc. takes a significant amount of time, and then you'll have to actually do the deciding on which entries to vote. This was a real problem with the small car contest and the construction vehicle contest, as they had huge number of entries. I don't think this can be eased up that much with tools but if someone is willing to spend the time and effort to actually make such a tool, I'm willing to be proven wrong.

I'm actually not thinking of specialized parts for electric engines, rather some brick-built solution that's more complex than those gunbarrels. The square pistons from the 80's definitely needed an upgrade as they were large and cumbersome and wouldn't fit in anything but the largest models, but I don't think there's similar need for a fake electric motor, brickbuilt motors should be doable in many scales and styles with current parts (especially if you include System parts).

Are there also some sort of stators around the rotors? Those Bionicle gunbarrels feel sort of cheap solution for a rotors, I'd have preferred some kind of brick-built thingy...

Your post count is visible on the left, below your profile picture with some other information. As of typing this, you have 61 posts, so you're eligible for voting.

11: 10 9: 6 5: 4 2: 3 1: 2 4: 1

Give me a bucketful of those new 3x5 flipflops now! Other than that, even less interesting than most Technic car sets.

Ah, right, almost forgot about voting. Will do tonight.

Another contest idea which popped into my mind: Recreate another (non-Lego) toy in Technic. It should be based on some real toy for which photos should be provided and it should have some kind of functionality faithful to the original. It should also be clearly a toy and not something that's otherwise functional (for example a pedal car could be eligible but a kid's bike wouldn't).

Maybe some day, but it was only a couple of years away. If we're going to revisit old contest themes, there's plenty of others which were held much longer ago like watercraft, aircraft or pullback contests. At some point there should be a truck contest which, I'm sure, would also gather a lot of interest. Perhaps with some kind of limitations like "truck but no cranes" or something.

I think shrink a set and expand a set should indeed be two different contests. The universal set contest sounds fun, though it would be hard to verify that they indeed use the same selection of parts. Of course leftover parts would have to be allowed, but other than that, do we just trust that the designs are as claimed, or would there have to be some kind of verification too? Like parts list + digital models of the builds or something.

I bought 4mm (outer diameter) tubing a while ago from a local hardware store specializing in plastic products, and it fits perfectly, though it's somewhat softer than the Lego hoses.

I haven't been building at all for a long while, and couldn't gather the interest to actually finish my entry. I was really excited about it in the beginning but somewhere along the line I lost the enthusiasm towards it, perhaps partly due to the technical difficulties, and partly due to my somewhat busy other life, which makes it hard to get anything demanding done. It's a shame I couldn't finish my entry but can't really help it at this point.

It's significantly smaller with tyre size of 62,4 whereas 42110 has tyre size of 81,6.

Ok the new Land Rover seems pretty cool. I especially like that it has a lot going on inside with steering & suspension so it's more than just a pretty exterior.

Hard to believe there would be a suspension in a non-Technic model. Never say never, but I believe when I see.

42055 was priced really moderately though, with RRP of about 230€. And yeah, it had comparably absurd number of those 5x7 frames (53 total, which is almost twice the number of the set with second largest number of those frames, 42100). So even if the crane happened to have similar number of the new 3x19 frames, it's still a far cry from justifying the price. There has to be some new electronics or else it's just complete bollocks.

I'm sure GDPR is covered by the terms by Microsoft, which provides the form for TLG to use.

Nah, this is just normal marketing and customer engagement.

I'm also saddened that innovation and interesting set design seems to mostly be a thing of past with Technic, but it's also a fact that the current lineup makes TLG a lot of money and I can't really blame them for the state of things. Maybe the public will at some point get bored with the endless and functionally identical car sets but at the moment it seems that those are the way to go for moneymaking.

There's no legal contract to sign behind the link so there can't be legal consequences. Unless you count the terms & conditions linked at the very bottom, but that's with Microsoft who provides the form, and not with TLG. If, after submitting your info, you get contacted by TLG and are asked to sign something, then there might be legal consequences but not before.